How to

Design Research Proposals

Research proposals are one of the most important genres of academic writing. They do more than describe future research: they construct a persuasive case for why that research should be funded, why it matters now, why the proposed methods are appropriate, and why the applicant is well placed to carry it out. A strong proposal must therefore combine scientific clarity, strategic positioning, and careful attention to its readers. It must speak both to specialists, who will assess the substance of the project, and to broader panels, administrators, or evaluators, who may encounter the project mainly through its title, abstract, keywords, introduction, and projected impact. This guide brings together the main elements of proposal writing: the different types of proposals, the criteria by which they are usually evaluated, the audiences they must address, and the design of their core sections, from the state of the art and research aims to methodology, dissemination, impact, and work plan.

Part I: Navigating proposals

In your academic life, you will have to dedicate a huge amount of time proposal writing. There are two main types of research proposals: formative proposals (doctoral and postdoctoral) and grant proposals (see the dedicated page for further information). A crucial distinction exists within formative proposals, as doctoral and postdoctoral proposals differ significantly. Their objectives vary depending on the stage of research they aim to fund. Another important difference concerns the template: each funding institution (e.g. FWO, FNRS, ERC, FCT) has its own specific template for research proposals.

Despite the distinct nature of doctoral and postdoctoral proposals, as well as the specific requirements of each funding institution, there has been a trend over the past decade to standardise templates in line with the European Union’s Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions (MSCA) template, which itself is based on the format of the ERC grant proposals. In this guide, I will outline what I believe to be the basic template on which most, if not all, European formative proposals are modelled.

A research proposal provides a concise, well-founded, and persuasive description of the following six key elements to which a number of further elements is usually added:

1. An introduction to your proposed research

2. The state of the art related to your proposed research

3. Your research aims and objectives

4. The methods you will employ

5. The impact and dissemination of your research

6. The work plan for your future research

These six key elements are the fundamental structure of any research proposal. Other elements are crucial, too – for instance, risk assessment, data management, and so on – yet they are accessory to these main six parts of the proposal. In addition, you should know that most proposal templates are structured into two parts.

Part A: Technical information about your career and academic background (e.g. Where did you study? Where will the research take place? Who will supervise your research?). This section is usually completed by filling in online forms.

Part B: Your research proposal, structured according to the template provided by the funding institution (typically available for download from their website). This section is a formal text that requires careful writing, editing, and balancing.

In this guide, I will focus solely on the latter: the actual research proposal.

three basic criteria

The MSCA template, and many European templates that followed, are organised around three main criteria, often expressed using different terms:

Excellence: You must demonstrate that the research you propose is of the highest scientific calibre.

Impact: You must show that your research will have a wide-ranging, profound, and lasting effect on your field and, more broadly, on society.

Implementation: You must demonstrate that you know how to carry out the proposed research (including its outputs) and that you will receive appropriate training.

Each criterion governs distinct sections, which are typically consistent across most proposals:

Excellence: Introduction; state of the art; advancing beyond the state of the art; methodology; alignment of proponent and supervisor.

Impact: Expected impact of the research on the proponent’s profile, the field of study, and broader contexts; discussion of outputs and outreach.

Implementation: Description of project implementation, milestones, Gantt chart, and contingency plans.

Although the content you provide may vary slightly between sections, your objective remains the same for all three criteria (Excellence, Impact, and Implementation): to convince the evaluators that your research must be funded. Your argument should be that the proposal must (not should) be supported. When two equally strong proposals are being considered, the evaluating committee will select the one whose urgency and impact are better articulated. Without exaggeration (but avoiding unnecessary modesty), you must emphasise the relevance, broad scope, and scientific urgency of your research.

In line with this overarching aim, you need to think like an evaluator. This means following three main rules: (1.) Stick closely to the proposal template by carefully reading the guidelines to ensure you provide the evaluators with exactly what they expect in each section. (2.) Consider how your research connects to other fields and broader research frameworks to persuade the evaluators of its wide-reaching potential impact. (3.) Use storytelling and rhetorical nuance to make your proposal stand out, without overstatement.

The audience

Research proposals constitute a unique literary genre. On the one hand, they are close to scientific articles inasmuch as the research you present must be solid and credible. On the other, however, the aim of a research proposal is different from that of an article: it needs to persuade its audience to fund your research. This means that its design must include some specific persuasive tools (style, references, and so on) to convince the evaluators that your research must be funded.

This is not an easy task. A first obstacle is directly related to the audience of your proposal. Broadly speaking, your proposal will be handled by four groups of people:

1. Officers/Administrative Staff: These individuals will manage your proposal, matching it with potential evaluators (mainly using your keywords and abstract, but also the bibliography).

2. External evaluators: Experts in your field who will assess your proposal by writing a report (similar to how articles are reviewed).

3. Rapporteurs: Typically a scholar who will write the “consensus report” for the commission, summarising the evaluators’ reports.

4. Evaluating Commissions/Panels: Selected scholars who decide which proposals will be funded, primarily based on the consensus reports (and also your abstract).

These groups will have varying levels of expertise (experts in your field, experts from other fields, laypeople) and will engage with different parts of your proposal. You need to consider this fundamental aspect when designing your proposal. Indeed:

1. Officers/Administrative Staff: Likely laypeople, they will focus mainly on your abstract, keywords, and bibliography.

2. External evaluators: Experts in your field, they will review the entire proposal.

3. Rapporteurs: Experts in your field, they will read, summarise, and provide a general assessment of the evaluators’ reports.

4. Evaluating Commission: Experts from other fields, they will focus mainly on your abstract and, sometimes, the introduction, but may extend their reading to the entire project if necessary.

To successfully navigate the evaluation process, your proposal needs to communicate effectively with all of these groups. This means aligning the tone and structure of each section to the intended audience:

Readership Group 1: Laypeople and indirect experts (abstract, keywords, introduction, bibliography).

Readership Group 2: Experts in your field (the remaining sections).

By tailoring your message to suit its audience, you can increase your chances of securing funding.

Evaluating proposals

The first thing to remember when you consider how your proposal will be evaluated is that external evaluators are given a template and rubrics to assess it. While these rubrics vary from scheme to scheme, they are generally quite similar. You must align your proposal with these rubrics as closely as possible. Once again, alignment is key to your strategy. Typically, the rubrics are directly tied to the three criteria we discussed earlier, though some schemes may have their own specific rubrics – make sure to identify them before writing your proposal.

The Excellence criterion is usually the most important. It covers the scientific sections of your proposal (although the other sections are equally crucial), namely: the introduction, state of the art, advancing beyond the state of the art, methodology, and the match between the proponent and the supervisor. While the introduction is aimed at a broader audience (including both experts and laypeople), the remaining sections are the core of your research.

The Impact criterion outlines how your research, if funded, will affect your field of study and your career. Here, you need to discuss the expected results in terms of outputs and outreach, and how these will influence various stakeholders. The sections under this criterion highlight the significance of your proposal in terms of pioneering research that has the potential to reshape and redirect scholarly debate. The impact of your research typically addresses three main areas: your career, your outputs, and your outreach.

The Implementation criterion outlines how you plan to execute your research. In this section, you will need to include work packages, milestones, a risk assessment, and a Gantt chart. Additionally, you should address risk management strategies and contingency plans to demonstrate how you will mitigate potential challenges and ensure the project’s success.

Evaluators will write a report and assign a score to your proposal. Keep in mind that different sections of the proposal carry different weights in the overall evaluation. Only proposals scoring above a set threshold (for instance, 70%) will proceed to the second stage of evaluation, which often includes an interview.

Final pieces of advice

Most European national funding schemes have aligned themselves with the ERC format for doctoral, postdoctoral, and grant funding programmes. Others are in the process of doing so. While labels and structures may vary slightly, the overall format of EU proposals is largely consistent. This is beneficial because once you learn how to write a strong proposal, you can apply these skills across different funding schemes. (However, mastering this skill requires experience and reflection.)

When you set out to write a research proposal, it’s natural to focus primarily on your research question, often with a high degree of specialisation. Yet, to succeed, you must go beyond this. A good proposal is always: (1.) well-grounded, meaning scientifically sound; (2.) ambitious, meaning groundbreaking and novel; (3.) persuasive, meaning clear, elegant, and precise; (4.) impactful, meaning open to cross-disciplinary connections and broader applications; (5.) realistic, meaning not overpromising or attempting more than you can achieve.

Part II: Designing Proposals

As I mentioned in the basic introduction to research proposals, this kind of texts provides a concise, well-founded, and persuasive description of mostly the following six key elements: (1.) an introduction to your proposed research; (2.) the discussion of state of the art related to your proposed research; (3.) your research aims and objectives; (4.) the discussion of the methodology you will employ; (5.) the impact and dissemination of your research; (6.) the work plan for your future research.

One of the greatest challenges is distilling all this content into just a few pages. For instance, the B1 section of a MSCA proposal, as previously discussed, is limited to 10 pages. Given this constraint, crafting a proposal often requires an iterative process of drafting and refining: starting with longer drafts that are gradually pared down into a clear, impactful final version.

Another big challenge is given by the audience: to succeed in the evaluation process, your proposal must resonate with all its readers. This means aligning both the tone and structure of each section with the expectations of two primary audience groups: Group 1, which includes laypeople and indirect experts: abstract, keywords, introduction, and bibliography; and Group 2, which includes experts in your field: all remaining sections. By adapting your message to these distinct readerships, you significantly improve your chances of securing funding.

This guide is the direct continuation of the basic introduction to proposals and the job market. Here, I will give you some crucial insights on the structure of each section of the proposal and how to constructively engage with it.

Title, keywords, and abstracts

As LaPlaca, Lindgreen, and Vanhamme (2018, p. 203) emphasise, “the purpose of the title is to get the reader excited about the manuscript, and to invite the reader into the manuscript.” A well-crafted title must: (1.) captivate the reader’s attention in an elegant and engaging manner, and (2.) clearly represent the main focus of the work, avoiding ambiguity.

Titles are among the most personal aspects of academic writing, but failing to adhere to these two essential principles can lead to a paper’s ineffectiveness. Specifically, fewer people will read it because: it appears uninteresting or dull (violating the first rule) or it seems irrelevant to their needs (violating the second rule). It’s crucial to guard against potential misalignments between the title and the content.

In turn, keywords serve as indexing entries, classifying your text within a thematic network of similar topics. Although they might seem secondary, their role is pivotal. While for articles keywords affect journal indexing and the attraction of potential readers, for research proposals, keywords influence the selection of the referees of your proposal.

Always consider the function of your keywords strategically. In a proposal, they can lead to one referee instead of another, while in an article, they determine who finds and reads your work. Ask yourself: Who do you want as the referee of your proposal? Indeed, keywords govern the way in which proposals are assigned to their referees. Take the right steps to ensure that your proposal reaches the right audience by thoughtfully selecting your title and keywords.

As for the abstract, LaPlaca, Lindgreen, and Vanhamme (2018, p. 203) note that “the abstract serves as an advertisement for the article. …the abstract must create sufficient interest in the article to justify its purchase, for example, the research question, the framework of the research, the research methodology, and/or the findings.” It must highlight key elements such as the research question, framework, methodology, and findings. Remember that abstracts for proposals and articles are slightly different. Indeed, a research abstract usually follows the IMRaD template structured into (1.) context and introduction, (2.) aims and objectives; (3.) methodology, (4.) expected results, and (5.) mention of expected impact.

An abstract is essentially a considered summary of your work, whether it be an article, paper, or proposal. It provides readers – including evaluators, organisers, and scholars – with a well-founded, specific, and accurate understanding of your research. A good abstract performs two essential functions: (1.) it accurately describes your work; (2.) it promotes your research and you as a scholar.

As LaPlaca, Lindgreen, and Vanhamme (2018) stress, “…the abstract must emphasize the research’s findings and its contributions to conceptual perspectives, methodological considerations, and/or managerial practices, among others.” To that end, it must be concise, clear, concrete, and engaging. Remember, the abstract is your prime opportunity to present your research. Highlight its contribution to ongoing debates, its potential to open new perspectives, its solutions to long-standing issues, or its interdisciplinary relevance. However, be careful not to oversell it.

While individual strategies vary, research proposals often benefit from a structured, informative abstract (such as IMRaD). Keep your audience in mind: research proposal abstracts must be readable and comprehensible to a broader audience than abstracts for articles or talks. The evaluating committee may include people from disciplines far removed from philosophy. Therefore, your abstract must be tailored for non-experts in your field.

As with most academic writing, it is best to draft your Title, Abstract, and Keywords (TAKs) after completing your proposal to ensure they align with the overall content.

Introduction and the state of the art

In a research proposal, the introduction should be written in terms that are understandable and relatable to a non-specialist audience, often referred to as laypeople. Most of the evaluators reviewing your proposal are not experts in your field, yet you need to persuade them thoroughly if you wish to succeed.

Introductions to research proposals differ significantly from those in articles. They have a different function: Proposal introductions must convince the reader of the importance and relevance of your project, requiring a distinct approach from article introductions – a different narrative to tell.

Keep in mind that, whether it is a professional CV, a letter of motivation, or a research proposal, the first half of the first page is what most influences the reader. You must engage them carefully, elegantly, and effectively. Explain while persuading; persuade while demonstrating that you are the right person for the job.

In this case, too, storytelling is key. In general, a strong proposal persuades the reader of the following: (1.) there is a real and consequential problem that must be addressed; (2.) there is a solution to this problem; (3.) if the problem is not resolved, it will lead to serious consequences; (4.) you know how to solve the problem; (5.) by funding your proposal, they will help you make a significant impact.

Accordingly, you may want to consider the following four pieces of advice when you are writing your introduction:

1. Follow a clear structure: context, your objective, and what you aim to achieve.

2. Be concise: the introduction should provide a preview of your proposal. You will have space to explore the context, goals, results, and impact in detail in later sections.

3. Consider the laypeople who will be reading it: be relatable, informed, and engaging. If possible, ask a friend outside academia to read it.

4. Maintain an elegant style: laypeople are still academics. Avoiding hyper-specialisation does not mean abandoning your scholarly tone.

The state-of-the-art (SOA) section allows you to address two crucial points. First, it shows that you have the required expertise. It must demonstrate your knowledge of the research issues while engaging with the relevant bibliography and existing studies. Second, it also demonstrate that further research is needed. This section should explain the problem that needs solving, highlighting that the current solutions are inadequate or that scholars have overlooked its significance, leading to avoidable consequences.

There is no set formula for writing a compelling SOA, but here are three tips: (1.) Use the Chicago reference style in your discussion of the SOA, and avoid footnotes. (2.) If you have many studies to discuss, organise them hierarchically, focusing on those that are most important and support your narrative. (3.) If you are not writing a grant application, do not spend too much space discussing the SOA. The most important part of the proposal is the description of why, what, and how you will conduct your research.

Aims, objectives, methodology

Once you have laid the groundwork by presenting the problem, you can then elaborate on what you aim to achieve with your research: your solution to the problem. This section, often called “Aims and Objectives” corresponds to a statement of purpose and is where you must clearly and persuasively outline: your main research goal, i.e., the solution to the problem framed by your research question.

You have to consider carefully that the main aim of a research proposal is the point you want to make with your research in terms of formulation of new theories and interpretations, reconstruction of neglected aspects and problems, etc. Accordingly, the research aim is directly linked to your research question: it corresponds to a declarative formulation of the research question. When describing your research aim, you have to consider two main stylistic nuances whose correct application is crucial in academic writing: (1.) the aim must be presented in a clear, concise, and compelling way; (2.) the aim must give the idea of something ambitious being accomplished. Use verbs that align with the idea of something being produced and vividly stress how relevant it is.

Basically, the research question is the main question you want to answer with your research. From this point of view, the research question is the core of your proposal, although seldom expressed in the form of a question. Aside from the research aim, the research question is also directly connected to the research hypothesis. Every research project is based on some preliminary hypothesis. This hypothesis usually details what you expect to find upon completion of your research. As such, the hypothesis can be true or false, depending on the results of your research. The research hypothesis:

1. Must be solidly grounded on preliminary data: you have to justify why you make that conjecture.

2. Must be verifiable: your project needs to assess whether your initial hypothesis is true or false.

3. Corresponds to the implicit assumption of a risk, since it is still to be verified. This means that the risk of a project increases with the number of assumed hypotheses.

In general, when describing your research aim, try do follow these directions. (1.) be specific: This is where you must convince specialists that you know how to solve the problem. Avoid generalities and demonstrate a deep understanding of the subject. (2.) Be concise yet descriptive: Word limits require clarity and precision. Highlight the importance of the research question and its implications without becoming verbose. (3.) Think, write, rethink, and polish: The Aims and Objectives section is the core of your proposal. Refine it repeatedly until it is short, clear, and accurately conveys what you hope to achieve. An excellent proposal is typically the result of at least eight drafts.

In addition to your main aim, it is advisable to include a few specific objectives that stem from and relate to it. These objectives are often complementary aspects of your main aim or additional benefits that arise from achieving it. The discussion of the research objectives is among the most complex aspects of designing a research proposal. To understand how they work, we have to clearly understand what research objectives are and how they are related to your research aim, actions, and milestones.

An analogy can useful. Let’s assume that I want to go from Brussels to Beijing to attend a conference. To that end (my main aim), some action is needed: I have to do some stuff that is necessary for the achievement of my end. In the case of your proposal, the action needed to accomplish your main research aim is the implementation of your research project. Going back to the analogy, I will go to the office to get a passport, I will go to the consulate to secure a visa, and I will search online to buy a flight ticket. These are three distinct actions that are directed towards a specific objective that is required by the main aim I have, that is, going to China and attend the conference. In other words, they are the procedural steps I need to take to get there. These procedural steps are organically connected to the action towards the aim as necessary parts of it. Most importantly, the procedural steps are units composed of smaller entities. They all express an action towards a lower degree goal and also a goal, that is, an objective towards which the action is planned.

With research proposals we have a much similar situation. The achievement of your research aim is subordinated to the implementation of your research project: some action is needed. The project implementation will proceed step by step producing workable segments each including a goal, i.e., an objective and an action. The completion of each segment also implies a moment of general checking of its results with the overall implementation of your project in relation to its research aim. This is called a milestone.

I refer to this kind of objectives as direct (or procedural) objectives. They are directly linked to your aim as necessary point to gain in order to achieve your aim. This kind of objectives are the completion of the procedural steps: they are research gains you make while working on structured phases of your project directed to your aim.

In addition to direct objectives, research project often include also oblique (or indirect) objectives. Oblique objectives are thematically linked to your aim, but they are not necessary to its achievement. This kind of objectives are the development of contextual aspects of your work on the main aim. As such, they are not related to the line of steps needed to get to the aim. In sum: (1.) direct (or procedural) objectives: to move from A to D, you need to achieve B and C; (2.) oblique (or correlative) objectives: by achieving D, you will also reach E and F, which are closely linked to D. Please, note that this is contextual terminology: do not use it in your proposal!

Think of these as sub-goals that clarify how your aim contributes to the broader context of ongoing research in your field and beyond. Some crucial tips for you to consider:

1. Objectives must be structurally aligned with the aim. As completion of procedural steps, they must be conceived as necessary phases to get to your aim..

2. Aim must flow naturally from you (direct) objectives. By considering your objectives only, a reader should think that your aim is accomplishable.

3. Oblique objectives should neither exceed the aim nor be artificial. Be extremely careful with them.

4. Objectives must refer to the result of an action, not the action itself. To this end, you must use result verbs.

5. Objectives must be accompanied by the action towards them. You need to state what you will do to accomplish each objective.

6. Actions must be described as actions. You have to use action verbs expressing what you will do.

7. Do not use hedging language, either here or elsewhere in your project. In particular, do not use desiderative verbs, verbs like “try” and “attempt”, etc.

In recent years, the methodology section has become a critical part of proposal evaluations. In this dedicated section, you must carefully (yet concisely) explain and justify the method(s) you will use in your research. Evaluators expect you to articulate your approach clearly and provide a solid rationale.

You will likely employ more than one method, and this is an advantage: the more interdisciplinary, the better. The current trend favours interdisciplinary approaches and blended methods. Consider the following questions. Will your research engage with other disciplines or their objects of study? Are you going to apply methodologies from other disciplines in your research? Is this a new methodology or application in your field Remember that you need to not only state your chosen methodology but also discuss how you will apply it to your research and why you have chosen this specific methodological approach. The length, structure, and level of detail required will depend on the proposal format and the institution’s template.

As a way to recap the most important points about the methodology section. (1.) Explain why you are using this method: What are its benefits? What results will it lead to? (2.) Consider whether you will use more than one method. (3.) Be mindful of the curse of knowledge: You can’t assume what your reader knows or does not know. Be clear and thorough, even if it feels redundant at times.

Dissemination, impact, work plan

In either a dedicated section or while discussing your work plan, you will need to present your dissemination strategy. This involves detailing the following:

Your research outputs: What written and spoken scientific contributions will your research produce?

Your outreach: How will you share the results of your research with the wider public, including non-academic laypeople? This might involve activities such as creating a website, participating in events like the European Researchers’ Night, or publishing in non-academic outlets.

Dissemination is directly tied to the impact of your project, as the extent to which your research is shared determines its reach and effect. In Europe, research institutions increasingly adhere to the Open Science policies set by the European Union, with far-reaching implications.

The EU’s Open Science policies require that the results of EU-funded (and often state-funded) research be published as open-access. This means you must either publish in open-access journals or purchase the rights to make your work open-access with traditional publishers. Funding for open-access publication may come from your project’s budget (e.g., from your bench fees), so it is essential to check whether these requirements apply. If they do, you’ll need to determine the appropriate form of open access for your work.

Impact is a crucial component of any proposal. It outlines how your research will generate transformative effects at various levels, both within academic circles and in broader societal contexts. You should be clear about the different levels of impact your research will have: (1.) local level: Contribution to the debate within your field; (2.) interdisciplinary level: How other fields related to your research will benefit; (3.) societal level: The impact on society and stakeholders beyond academia. Be ambitious when addressing societal impact, even though this can be challenging in some fields.

Once you have described the scientific rationale behind your project, you must explain exactly how you plan to achieve your research goals. This is the work plan, which provides a detailed breakdown of what you will do over the duration of your project, focusing on three key aspects:

1. Your research: What and when you will study specific aspects (e.g., when you will investigate X, analyse Y, work on Z).

2. Your training: What new skills you will acquire (e.g., when you will learn technique A, visit institution B to gain expertise).

3. Your dissemination strategy: When and where you will publish your results, present your findings, and organise outreach activities.

The work plan essentially outlines the structure you will follow to implement your research, often organised into work packages. The EU CHAFEA HP Fact Sheet 3 defines these items as follows: “A work package is a building block of the work breakdown structure that allows the project management to define the steps necessary for completion of the work. As such, a work package can be thought of as a sub-project, which, when combined with other work package units, form the completed project.” Hence, there is a plurality of types of work packages.

Each package includes a list of tasks or outputs that you will produce during that stage of the project. For example, the work package on publications would include (1.) what articles/books you will write, (2.) when you will write them, and (3.) where you plan to publish them. Key considerations for work packages:

1. Feasibility and credibility: Evaluators will assess whether your plan is realistic and whether you have a solid strategy for executing the project.

2. Inclusion of training, management, and assessment (milestones): A project is more than just research; it also involves managing your progress and ensuring you are on track.

3. Forward thinking: You need to envision how your project will unfold over 3 or 4 years and provide a clear, structured plan of what you will do at each stage.

The work packages are often visualised in a Gantt Chart, a requirement that many find challenging. This chart represents two key factors: (1.) directly, the allocation of time to each work package; (2.) indirectly, the overall organisation and structure of your research. While designing a credible work plan can be challenging, you need to find the right approach to your work plan. Consider the following pieces of advice:

1. Credibility: Demonstrate that your plan is feasible and that you have considered the right amount of work (neither too much nor too little).

2. Imagination: Proposals often require you to predict what you will be doing in the future, including potential challenges and alternative paths depending on how things progress.

3. Avoid overthinking: Some questions do not have a fixed answer because they depend on individual evaluators’ views (e.g., how many articles should a project produce?).

4. Master the technical language: You will need to familiarise yourself with the specific jargon used in research proposals, even if it seems bureaucratic or ambiguous at times.

Final SUGGESTIONS

Always bear in mind the “curse of knowledge“: you cannot know what your readers already understand, so do not assume they are experts in your field – this applies both to laypeople and experts. You should also be sure to specify what you expect to discover during your project’s implementation; demonstrate that you fully understand the problem and are prepared to address it. Try and reflect on the hard science approach: most funding schemes have been structured with a focus on hard sciences and are processed accordingly.

You should also be clear about your research hypothesis as something that requires “empirical validation”, in line with your disciplinary methods (which may not be empirical but can still be framed within this narrative). Remember that in Europe it is important to use technical terminology even if the call for applications (CFA) does not explicitly request it. And also remember the fundamental role of perceived alignment: always align your proposal with your academic profile, crafting a narrative that convincingly showcases your unique combination of experiences and skills.

While writing the proposal, you will need to project yourself into the future: a research proposal is rooted in the present (your CV and skills) but looks ahead to the future, as you are asked to describe what you will be doing in the years to come. Picture yourself at that stage – with humility and determination. Keep in mind that a research proposal is a story, offering a narrative that mirrors the structure of an adventure tale: the problem is the villain, you are the hero, and your solution is the weapon you’ll use to defeat the villain.